The desire to impeach Donald Trump

US News & Politics
1

Brenda Wineapple, in The New York Times, had recently penned an article, “Impeachment Is a Form of Hope,” in which she suggests the impeachment of President Trump. She likens the situation, in fact, to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson (just following the Civil War) and the near-impeachment of Richard Nixon.

But a plan always needs an endgame. And the endgame here most certainly resides in the Senate–where a two-thirds supermajority (needed to convict) most certainly does not exist. In fact, there is nothing even close to that.

So I see the desire for impeachment as nothing more than a feelgood measure.

Comments?

2

Ok, let me get this straight:

For over 385 days since the investigation by Robert Mueller, he found no evidence of collusion. But Trump was not exonerated. But still…I believe that the Democrats want to hang him “out to dry” nonetheless. Because they know, they really have nothing on him, and they are “foaming at the mouth” still over the fact that Hillary Clinton lost to him.
I personally believe they are at a complete lost so they are looking for some excuse to get rid of Trump. JMO

1 Like
3

Slick Willy Clinton was impeached in his first term, but not convicted in the Senate. He won a second term.

1 Like
4

This is also part of the reason dems want to impeach. Payback to Republicans.

Funny… it all revolves around the Clintons.

5

…but it may backfire on them and garner more votes for Trump in 2020. It had no effect on Clinton’s second term, though it did get him disbarred.

6

I think the comments made by Justin Amash should also be included as part of the discussion. Who cares what the left has to say?

bz-5ce1d039a0079

7

Like 99.9% of our worthless politicians Amash has regurgitated words but without saying anything nor offering any evidence of Trump’s corruption or obstruction.

1 Like
8

Impeachment should be a matter of law.

The Constitution does not say that the President can be removed whenever one-half of the House and two-thirds of the Senate want to do so. It specifies legal bases for pursuing it.
Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So far there is nothing. Mueller’s 2 years and 25+ million dollars provided zero evidence of a criminal act.

In the past 20 years, we have drifted toward making impeachment a political decision, determined by polls and calculations of partisan advantage. That course should be reversed before it further undermines the Constitution that the impeachment clause is meant to protect.

1 Like
9

As we continue to dumb down Americans who vote I don’t see a reversal on the horizon.

1 Like
10

It’s what a traitor looks like! Just start calling these hypocrites out for what they are! Why hide it anymore? The sooner that the public starts to ostracise people like Amash the sooner we can get down to the business of removing traitors from within!

11

People seem to be clueless.

The Constitution does not say that the President can be removed whenever one half of the House and two thirds of the Senate want to do so or the majority of Americans want him gone.

We are quickly losing our way in this country.

1 Like
12

That is the face of an anti-American leftist, masquerading as a Republican. That bullshit artist voted against Kate’s Law, ICE, and for sanctuary cities. Now he wants to impeach Trump.

2 Likes
13

[quote=“LouMan, post:8, topic:2621, full:true”]

The Constitution does not say that the President can be removed whenever one-half of the House and two-thirds of the Senate want to do so. It specifies legal bases for pursuing it.
Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.[/quote]

I am a Republican. I voted for Donald Trump in 2016, and expect to do so again in 2020.

Even so, it is my understanding that the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” may be understood either broadly or narrowly.

Brenda Wineapple, in an editorial in The New York Times–and, admittedly, she does not appear to be any fan of Donald Trump–says the following:

"Should impeachment be understood narrowly, in terms of specific infractions of specific laws, or more broadly, as violations of the public trust?..

“During that spring of 1868, the broader interpretation of impeachment — abuse of public trust — was lost in the weeds of legal bickering. And at his trial in the Senate, one vote saved Andrew Johnson. It was cast by Senator Edmund Ross, Republican of Kansas, who may have been bribed. Ross was heartily praised by John F. Kennedy in his ‘Profiles in Courage,’ which promoted a longstanding view: Johnson’s impeachment was the brainchild of partisan fanatics rather than thoughtful, even visionary people who, having abolished slavery, were determined to alter the direction of the country.”

Even if she is a liberal (who evidently does not view the anti-Trump Democrats as partisan fanatics), it is a truly interesting thought, I believe.

14

This is just sour grapes. He always hated Trump and wants to be vindicated in his hate.

15

Imagine the future.

The house begins impeachment hearings. he vote to impeach would likely be 100% democrats for and 100% GOP against. The vote a vote of partisan fanatics?

The measure is sent to the senate. The senate would certainly reject the measure.

What has been accomplished? The democrats would have widened the divide that already exists.

Who wins this game?
The democrats who will cry foul?
The progressives who will throw a tempe tantrum?
The supporters of Trump who will double down on they anger?

Who loses, the USA as it falls further into chaos created by the democrats and aided by the GOP.

Is loss of public trust a misdemeanor? A high crime? Treason is certainly out.
Maybe it falls in the other category.

1 Like
16

Long story short…Donald Trump sabotaged his entire administration to pursue the same old idiotic Conservatism Inc. agenda - and they still won’t vote for him :rofl:

17

The desire to impeach will soon be their undoing. Their desire will cause them to take action that will be seen as obstruction to the investigation that Barr is conducting.

Just as they have since Nov 2016, libs will call it wrong and get blindsided. Expect Nadler to author a book titled

“What Happened:Me too”

18
19

This is non-responsive. It merely is a gratuitous attack upon conservatism–and upon Donald Trump, also–without even attempting to answer the question in the OP.

20

Under those terms EVERY democrat would be up for impeachment , please !